HALAL INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL is committed to maintaining the highest ethical standards for all parties involved in the act of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal: the author, the editor of the journal, the peer reviewer and the publisher of the HALAL INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL publishing ethics, both internally and externally and we state the following principles of Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement based on Committe of Publication Ethics (COPE) standard. All articles not in accordance with these standards will be removed from the publication at any time even after the publication. In accordance with the code of conduct we will report any cases of suspected plagiarism or duplicate publishing to the relevant authorities. The Journal reserves the right to use plagiarism-detecting software to screen submitted papers at all times. 

 

It is generally a principle of scholarly communication that the journal Editor is solely and independently responsible for deciding which articles submitted might be published. Through manufacturing this decision, the Editor is guided by the journal’s editorial board policies and constrained by such legal requirements related to slander, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The result of this principle is the significance of scientifical archives as permanent historic records of scholarship transactions. Articles that have been published should remain extant, exact and unaltered as far as possible. However, occasionally circumstances can arise where an article is published that must later be retracted or even removed. Such actions must not be undertaken lightly and can only occur under extraordinary circumstances. Throughout cases, our archives at International Journal of Social Learning will hold all versions of articles, including those that were recalled or deleted. 

This policy has been designed to resolve this problem and to consider the best practice in the community of academics and libraries. As long as standards develop and change, we will revisit this problem and receive all of the input from the library and academic community. We believe this problem needs an international standard and will actively lobby for various information to establish an international standard and the best practice which could be adapted by industrial information and publishing. 

Allegations of Misconduct

The purpose of this policy is to prevent any misconduct related to research conducted for the journals and to suggest the fundamental principles and structural procedures in relation to research integrity deliberation required to ensure research ethics.

The range of misconduct policy

Research misconduct suggested in this policy pertains to fraud and refers to data fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and improper authorship.

1. "Fabrication" refers to any activity involving the creation of false information about non-existing data or findings.
2. "Falsification" refers to the artificial manipulation of the research materials/equipment/process or random modification/deletion of data resulting in distorted research contents or research results.
3. "Plagiarism" refers to acts of pirating others’ ideas, research contents, and research results without justifiable approvals or quotations.
4. "Improper authorship" refers to cases where the person who has contributed to research contents or research results is scientifically and technically unqualified as an author or where someone who has not contributed to the research contents or research results scientifically and technically but has been listed as an author merely to express gratitude or courtesy
5. Intentional acts to disturb a fraud investigation about themselves or others or acts which can be harmful to informants
6. Unfair evaluation regarding research of others or disclosure or pirating of research ideas or research results acquired during the evaluation process.
7. Severely aberrant acts that cannot be accepted in the community of the field of science and technology.

How does the journal address misconduct

Editors and publishers have an ethical obligation to:

1. Support the quality and ethics of the review process (pre-publication: weed out; prevent)
2. Ensure the correctness of the published literature (post-publication: correct; communicate)
3. Educate (prevent)

Editors/journals have an ethical obligation to respond and to address ethical allegations that may arise about published papers or papers in review. Systems and procedures are in place for investigating and addressing situations of misconduct, including cooperation with investigations from institutions or funding bodies.

Possible sanction

1. When the evidence of misconduct is confirmed the following procedures are to be applied:
2. Prior to publication (during review): The manuscript can be withdrawn from review
3. Post-publication (literature correction) The journal may publish a Retraction, Note of Editorial Concern, Errata/Correction with the author or all authors’ signature or editorial of an appropriate statement about the situation. The paper can be “marked” in the literature
4. Editors determine whether retract or correct after considering whether the case is fraud or an honest mistake. They consider the intent and then the extent to which the data is incorrect/misleading
5. The author may be banned from submitting to the journal.
6. Editors may, in some cases, provide information for other editors/publishers.
7. Editors may publish an editorial in the journal to discuss the issue generally and raise awareness of the issue.

Authorship and Contributorship

Authors are expected to comply with the following ethical guidelines. Any infringement may lead to a retraction of the article or even ban the author from journal publication.

1. The author’s main obligation is to deliver accurate and complete details of the research performed. The research data should contain sufficient information on the related subject.
2. Authors should ensure the originality of their work and that neither fraud nor fabrication is involved in their manuscript.
3. Authors should guarantee that the article has not been published previously or is not being evaluated for publication elsewhere.
4. Authors should ensure that their works do not contain any unlawful statements and/or any comment that may violate the law.
5. Authors are aware of and abide by the misconduct policy.

Authors listed on an article must meet all of the following criteria.

1. Made a significant contribution to the work reported, whether that’s in the conception, study design, execution, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation, or in all these areas.
2. Have drafted or written, or substantially revised or critically reviewed the article.
3. Have agreed on the journal to which the article will be submitted.
4. Reviewed and agreed on all versions of the article before submission, during revision, the final version accepted for publication, and any significant changes introduced at the proofing stage.
5. Agree to take responsibility and be accountable for the contents of the article and to share responsibility to resolve any questions raised about the accuracy or integrity of the published work.

Editorship

1. Editors should provide a fair judgment and consideration to all manuscripts based on its quality with no regard to race, religion, nationality, sex, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the author(s).
2. Editors are responsible to consider all the submitted manuscripts in a reasonable time frame.
3. Editors, with their expertise and fair judgment, are responsible to accept or reject the manuscripts. They are to build good communication with authors in regard to the manuscript’s publication. The final decision will be accompanied by the reviewer’s comment
4. Editors shall make sure no private information of authors is included in the manuscript sent to reviewers
5. Editors should ensure the confidentiality of the submitted manuscript and not disclose any information about the manuscript under consideration to other parties
6. Editors are to respect the author’s request to not use certain reviewers – with a well-reasoned objection - to consider their manuscript. However, editors can decide to use one or more of these reviewers if their professional input is considered to be important for the manuscript’s publication
7. Editors are to comply with COPE practices when considering a manuscript for publication.

Complaints and Appeals

The below procedure applies to appeals to editorial decisions, complaints about failure of processes such as long delays in handling papers and complaints about publication ethics. The complaint should in first instance be handled by the Editor in Chief responsible for the journal and/or the Editor who handled the paper. If they are the subject of the complaint please approach the publisher contact. 

Complaint about scientific content, e.g. an appeal against rejection

The Editor in Chief or Handling Editor considers the authors’ argument, the reviewer reports and decides whether (1) The decision to reject should stand (2) Another independent opinion is required, and (3) The appeal should be considered.

The complainant is informed of the decision with an explanation if appropriate. Decisions on appeals are final and new submissions take priority over appeals.

Complaint about processes, e.g. time taken to review

The Editor in Chief together with the Handling Editor (where appropriate) and/or publisher contact (where appropriate) will investigate the matter. The complainant will be given appropriate feedback. Feedback is provided to relevant stakeholders to improve processes and procedures.

Complaint about publication ethics, e.g., researcher's author's, or reviewer's conduct

The Editor in Chief or Handling Editor follows guidelines published by the Committee on Publication Ethics. The Editor in Chief or Handling Editor may ask the publisher for advice on difficult or complicated cases. The Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor decides on a course of action and provides feedback to the complainant. If the complainant remains dissatisfied with the handling of their complaint, he or she can submit the complaint to the Committee on Publication Ethics.

Conflict of Interest Policy

Authors, Editors and Reviewers are expected to adhere to the following guidelines in compliance with COPE practices.

1. Authors should clearly inform their source of financial support -institution, private, and/or corporate- for their research
2. In case the author and editor of Halal International Journal have a relationship which may lead to an unfair evaluation, another editor will be appointed instead.
3. Reviewers should be aware of any appearance of conflict of interest when receiving a manuscript for evaluation and are required to promptly return the manuscript to the editor, informing the conflict of interest issue.

Data and Reproducibility

Data availability and reporting guidelines are available in the Author Guidelines section.

Ethical Oversight

All submitted articles and exchanging information involving authors and editors in Halal International Journal will be considered confidential. Communications related to the publication process should not be disclosed on any website without prior consent from the editors.

The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.

All research studies on humans (individuals, samples, or data) must have been performed in accordance with the principles stated in the Declaration of Helsinki.

Prior to starting the study, ethical approval must have been obtained for all protocols from the local institutional review board (IRB) or other appropriate ethics committee to confirm the study meets national and international guidelines for research on humans. A statement to confirm this must be included within the manuscript, which must provide details of the name of the ethics committee and reference/permit numbers where available.

For non-interventional studies (e.g. surveys), where ethical approval is not required (e.g. because of national laws) or where a study has been granted an exemption by an ethics committee, this should be stated within the manuscript with a full explanation. Where a study has been granted exemption, the name of the ethics committee which provided this should also be included. However, if the researcher is in doubt, they should always seek advice from the relevant department before conducting the study.

Non-stigmatizing and non-discriminatory language should be used when describing different groups by race, ethnicity, age, disease, disability, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Human studies categorized by such groupings should include an explanation of the definitions and categories, including whether any rules of human categorization were required by the relevant funding agencies.

Ethical approval for all studies must be obtained before the research is conducted. Authors must be prepared to provide further information to the journal editorial office upon request.

Intellectual Properties

Disclaimer

The viewpoint of articles published in Halal International Journal are solely the authors’ and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board of the publisher

Copyright

The author is responsible for acquiring permission(s) to reproduce any copyrighted figures, tables, data, or text that are being used in the submitted paper. Authors should note that text quotations of more than 250 words from a published or copyrighted work will require a grant of permission from the original publisher to reprint. The written permission letter(s) must be submitted together with the manuscript.

Publishing

This journal uses Open Journal System which is a journal management and publishing software developed, supported, and distributed by the Public Knowledge Project (PKP).

Journal Management

This Journal is available online and can be accessed for free

Publication in this journal is through Article Processing Charge scheme and all published papers are available online through open access.

Peer Review Process

All papers will be critically examined by anonymous reviewer/s, selected for their competencies in the subject area of the paper. Acceptance of the paper will depend upon its scientific merit and suitability for the Halal International Journal. A paper may be accepted in its original form, subject to revision, or rejection.

The reviewers' (and editors’) suggestions will be conveyed to the author, who will then have an opportunity to revise the paper. Please see detailed information about our Peer Review Process.

Post Publication - Discussion and Correction

The Halal International Journal follows the guidance from COPE in regard to ethical concerns for published articles. Complaints and Appeal Editor in Chief email at [email protected] is available for contact should the authors have an objection or disagreement pertaining to the publication process in Halal International Journal. Every complaint will be acknowledged and handled to resolve the issue accordingly. In addition, articles may be retracted due to both scientific and/or ethical reasons, which can be requested by the author(s) or by the Editor. Articles that are found to be seriously flawed or violated ethical guidance from COPE will be retracted in order to correct the scientific record. The retracted article will be noticed on the journal's website alongside information regarding the reason for the retraction.

EDITOR RESPONSIBILITIES: 

1. Accountability and Plagiarism: The editors of a peer-reviewed journal are accountable and responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. It is our routine procedure to run all submission through plagiarism detection software. Our acceptance rate is no more than 25%. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers when making this decision.
2. Fair play: An editor should evaluate manuscripts for those intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
3. Confidentiality: The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
4. Disclosure and conflicts of interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

 

1. Reviewers must keep information pertaining to the manuscript confidential. Reviewers must bring to the attention of the Editor-in-Chief any information that may be reason to reject publication of a manuscript. Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts only for their intellectual content.
2. Each paper is first reviewed by the editor and, if it is judged suitable for this publication, it is then sent to two expert reviewers for double blind peer review. Manuscripts will be reviewed by the Editorial Board and at least two expert reviewers. Decisions regarding the publication of a manuscript will be based on the Board's recommendations. Manuscripts submitted by members of the journal's Editorial Board are subjected to the same review procedure.
3. The reviewers will evaluate manuscripts based on the content without considering genders, sexual preference, religious belief, citizenship, ethnic and origin, or political philosophy of the authors.
4. The reviewers need to assure the confidentiality of the information in the manuscript.
5. The reviewers need to report to the Editor-in-Chief if they find any violation in the manuscript.  
6. The reviewers need to evaluate the manuscripts as objective as possible and the results of the review present their opinion on the works.
7. The reviewers who feel unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor-in-Chief and excuse himself from the review process.

 

AUTHOR RESPONSIBILITIES: 

1. Reporting standards: Authors should present their results clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation. Authors should describe their methods clearly and unambiguously so that their findings can be confirmed by others
2. Originality, plagiarism and acknowledgement of sources: Authors should adhere to publication requirements that submitted work is original, is not plagiarized, and has not been published elsewhere - fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. If an author has used the work and/or words of others, that this original is been appropriately cited or quoted and accurately reflects individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting.
3. Data Access and Retention: Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
4. Ethics: Authors should only submit papers only on work that has been conducted in an ethical and responsible manner and that complies with all relevant legislation.
5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
6. Authorship of the Paper: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
7. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication: An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
8. Fundamental errors in published works: When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.